Google’s YouTube quality reports will help ISPs “upsell” customers

YouTube's HD certification will help ISPs sell pricier services.

NEW YORK CITY—Google rolled out a Video Quality Report for YouTube in Canada a few months ago to help Internet service providers and users analyze streaming performance in each city and region. ISPs receive detailed reports, and consumers can check the website to see typical performance where they live.

Further Reading

This can partly be seen as an effort to shame ISPs that offer poor video quality, much as Netflix has done with its monthly speed rankings. Today, a Google executive said the company is also helping ISPs “upsell” consumers to pricier Internet services by advertising high-definition YouTube quality.

“It has effectively drawn attention to ISPs that are able to, at least on one of their products, offer an HD experience,” Keith McCallion, technical program manager of peering and content delivery for Google, said in a presentation at the Content Delivery Summit in New York. “What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.”

While Netflix simply shows an average of all streams across an ISP’s network, Google is aiming to be more specific. The Google data shows the throughput that at least 90 percent of users receive based upon a month’s worth of data and billions of measurements per day. The data is shown by region, city, and even in different parts of cities for the bigger markets.

“If you’re able to sustain bit rates that are compatible with HD, we’ll call you HD verified,” McCallion said. “This way people know they should expect an HD experience when they’re using this ISP, and it’s something for ISPs to work toward.”

In some countries where Internet access isn’t as good, just sustaining a consistent streaming connection is an achievement, even if it’s only in standard definition.

“We do still have some markets where [standard definition] is the relevant metric,” he said.

Google uses the same type of data to make decisions about upgrading its own capacity.

While Canada was first to get YouTube quality reports, “it goes without saying that we will launch it in other markets relatively soon,” McCallion said.

McCallion also described how the Google Global Cache peering and content delivery network has been used to improve YouTube quality over the past few years. Google deploys video caches throughout the world—and peers with ISPs in more than 70 locations in more than 30 countries—making Google one of the most heavily peered networks in the world, he said.

Shame on Google. This could have been a great teachable moment to explain to the public why the ISPs need to be taken to task for not using the money that we pay them to make sure they can get us the data we request.

What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.

Is there a lot of places where both FTTH and ADSL are simultaneously offered by the same ISP at the same location?

Second, I don't use Youtube, so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.

Is there a lot of places where both FTTH and ADSL are simultaneously offered by the same ISP at the same location?

Well, IMHO, there aren't a lot of places where FTTH/FTTN is available at all, ADSL or no. But my understanding is that it's pretty common for the legacy ADSL customers to keep their existing service alongside the FTT* offering unless and until a customer specifically upgrades. (That's where the upsell comes in, and in my experience, the carriers try pretty hard already.)

Quote:

Second, I don't use Youtube

But...you're missing out on ALL the cute animal videos! Why, just the other day, there was this Bunny eating raspberries...

Quote:

so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

I can (unfortunately) confirm that you can usually squeeze an HD stream through...with some buffering...so long as neither you nor anyone else in your home tries doing anything else on the connection at the same time.

I think this is a smart move by Google. If Google refuses to pay the likes of Comcast, Verizon, and ATT for direct connections, the only way they can get HD certified is by upgrading their peering connections with backbone providers. This would help everyone in the market, including Netflix, Hulu, internet startups, etc, while providing better quality for users.

Also, so long as providers can't build a Youtube fastlane, the only way ISPs will be able to maintain their HD rating is by ensuring a high consistent average bandwidth for all traffic, which is another win for consumers.

What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.

Is there a lot of places where both FTTH and ADSL are simultaneously offered by the same ISP at the same location?

Second, I don't use Youtube, so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

Some companies (ATT with Uverse) will take their older DSL infrastructure and try to implement a FFTN (node) and still go the last mile or so with twisted pair. This really isn't ideal (I mean better than all twisted pair obviously), to say the least, as you are still constrained by the properties of twisted pair, but you generally have a somewhat better experience.

The main problem, IMO at least, isn't the medium which the content is transmitted but the overall switching and PoS given for data. Most telcos over provision their systems so they can get more people with less HW. They will generally use data patterns to get the "optimum" usage. This works until there is either a change in the pattern (new service such as Netflix/YouTube comes out) or their are spikes in usage (some breaking news happens and everyone wants to watch on their computer).

Once they have set in the infrastructure it is hard to add and/or change how things are set up. The simple math for over provisioning looks a lot like this (example on real FTTN systems):

-The medium can transmit a max of 1Gbps.-I have 100 users I want to supply content to-I could either give each of them 10Mbps all of the time or I could promise them 2Mbps at the most and they could burst upto 20Mbps when needed.-If I give them 10M, I can never add anyone else. If I do the 2M/20M burst I could add another 400 users before I had to add HW.-Price conscience telcos go for the 2/20 option and add as many as possible-When it's time to move them due to data overload.......let's not think about that right now

They sell you a 20Mbps service because it's "capable" of that, not that you are actually guaranteed it.

360K bits per second works fine for the you tube content I watch. It is the intellectual value of the content not its video quality that is important. Even for good television it is very doubtful that anything beyond DVD quality has much value. In the real world most people were happy with vhs quality for a long time. The best quality my monitor is capable of is important to me when viewing some of my own pictures. But, it takes 15 to 30 minutes of looking at the image before my mind has had enough time to process the image for the higher visual quality to make a difference.

With "pipes" already at "near capacity" due to our aging infrastructure...well its just shameful that this informational tool is convincing people who ignore or know nothing of tech to invest in a higher speed, not that it will necessarily improve anything at all.

And here I thought before the tool would be for informational purposes to compare the poor current condition of things. Seems like a win-win for Google too in their own municipalities.

What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.

Is there a lot of places where both FTTH and ADSL are simultaneously offered by the same ISP at the same location?

Second, I don't use Youtube, so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

Unless stuff really changed with dsl, most no one gets 3 to 6 unless they are really close to the source. That's my experience from working in dsl support

Hmm. Looking at the Canadian "report", all there is is a graph that tells nothing because it doesn't have any numbers. Man, so nice to not be bombarded with such useless information like download speeds and how much you need to be able to stream each level of HD and other such trivia.

What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.

Is there a lot of places where both FTTH and ADSL are simultaneously offered by the same ISP at the same location?

Second, I don't use Youtube, so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

Unless stuff really changed with dsl, most no one gets 3 to 6 unless they are really close to the source. That's my experience from working in dsl support

I would hope most providers have moved to ADSL2+ (it was finalized in 2009) by now, so for reasonable distances to the node (<3km) 10Mb+ should be providable. I'm currently on VDSL about 2.5km from the node and can get a full 12Mb without problems. (Centurylink near Denver) the same distance using ADSL2+ should provide around 10Mb.

Maybe I misunderstood, but it sounds to me like this is actually quite brilliant. By providing additional granularity, Google will prevent ISPs from just saying "Hey, your stats are off, XX% of the total is still using ADSL, so we are not responsible. It's our clients who are cheap and didn't select the right package for their intended use." In that case, Google will just say "Hell no, mofo, look at the stats, even your Xfinity and FIOS clients are having constant problems, so don't give us that $hit".

As a sidenote, I really hope that's the terminology used when this exchange plays out

I assume also that Google takes into account the details of the wired or WiFi LAN on which the user resides to eliminate that source of "noise" in the data. It's not like they don't already know about many WiFi routers in the US after their little "van creep" operation.

Today, a Google executive said the company is also helping ISPs “upsell” consumers to pricier Internet services by advertising high-definition YouTube quality.

Sure, so ISPs can limit that speed lane, too.

I have the top tier broadband of AT&T in my area. Anyone from AT&T want to come into this discussion and explain to us how my rates seem to plummet while streaming YT or Netflix videos?

Don't give me this crap about broadband congestion. The exact same content streams on my 360 without a single performance hit.

I dub this, "Heisenberg's Youtube" principle - that is, either you can stream HD, but not on the ideal platform, or you can watch badly-pixelated TV on the ideal platform, but not both simultaneously. It tends to apply to oligopolised markets.

But...you're missing out on ALL the cute animal videos! Why, just the other day, there was this Bunny eating raspberries...

Not to mention plenty of quality channels, such as Roosterteeth (specially their Letsplay channel), Rev3, IGN, Geek & Sundry, various let's players (mindcrack, etc). Plus all those channels I don't watch featured in this commercials. Baking video game stuff? Sounds pretty cool.

What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.

Is there a lot of places where both FTTH and ADSL are simultaneously offered by the same ISP at the same location?

Second, I don't use Youtube, so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

As far as I can tell, Youtube 720p is just above 2 Mb/s and 1080p a smidge above 4 Mb/s.

What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.

Is there a lot of places where both FTTH and ADSL are simultaneously offered by the same ISP at the same location?

Second, I don't use Youtube, so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

As far as I can tell, Youtube 720p is just above 2 Mb/s and 1080p a smidge above 4 Mb/s.

I never looked at the average bandwidth for an entire video, but if it's only 2mb for 720p and people get buffering on that, that is really sad.

What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.

Is there a lot of places where both FTTH and ADSL are simultaneously offered by the same ISP at the same location?

Second, I don't use Youtube, so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

There are not a lot of places with FTTH, but there are many FTTN deployments, where the choice is vdsl or adsl for last mile, or 50+mbps and 20mbps respectively.

Given that my ADSL line which is quite capable of a sustained 20mbit/s from local servers one would expect that 1080p Youtube would be fine, when in fact during peak periods it struggles to stream 480p. Guess my connection won't be getting the Youtube certified stamp because it's not fibre.

What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.

Is there a lot of places where both FTTH and ADSL are simultaneously offered by the same ISP at the same location?

Second, I don't use Youtube, so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

As far as I can tell, Youtube 720p is just above 2 Mb/s and 1080p a smidge above 4 Mb/s.

I never looked at the average bandwidth for an entire video, but if it's only 2mb for 720p and people get buffering on that, that is really sad.

So is "Quality report" the modern day equivalent to blackmail photos? Is this some sort of variation on a protection-style racket?

[best stereotypical mobster voice] "So, you can 'upsell' or you can go swimming with concrete shoes. It's up to you. You look like a strong swimmer, but, hey, you never know. You might have a chance..."

Despite the press release language, the goal of this isn't actually to allow ISPs to upsell higher-end services. That's just the PR spin on it so that the ISPs will publicly support it. This is, depending on how cynical you're feeling, either an effort to shame ISPs into net neutrality or (more cynically) an effort on Google's part to keep them specifically from ending up in the same boat as Netflix. If ISPs are trying to use this data to upsell their faster services, they can't very well get away with deliberately congesting their ports to force Google to pay them (more) for peering.

What we’re able to do here is work with those ISPs to differentiate between their fiber product and their legacy ADSL product. The idea is this will upsell users to packages where they can actually sustain HD rates of video.

Is there a lot of places where both FTTH and ADSL are simultaneously offered by the same ISP at the same location?

Second, I don't use Youtube, so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

Unless stuff really changed with dsl, most no one gets 3 to 6 unless they are really close to the source. That's my experience from working in dsl support

I would hope most providers have moved to ADSL2+ (it was finalized in 2009) by now, so for reasonable distances to the node (<3km) 10Mb+ should be providable. I'm currently on VDSL about 2.5km from the node and can get a full 12Mb without problems. (Centurylink near Denver) the same distance using ADSL2+ should provide around 10Mb.

What's even sadder is that adsl2 seems to only exist for century link. Yes, there is uverse in some areas that use it, but it still isn't that widely deployed as one would expect coming out around 10 years ago, vs, DOCSIS3 rollouts.

I think the bigger problem with this is that most ISPs won't care, since there's no competition to worry about. Time Warner bought my ISP I previously had and Youtube, Twitch, and Netflix immediately started suffering afterwards, with no problem for the years before the purchase. Unfortunately it's either that or DSL that everyone says suffers constant outages and caps at 5/.5 at the highest tier.

Hmm. Looking at the Canadian "report", all there is is a graph that tells nothing because it doesn't have any numbers. Man, so nice to not be bombarded with such useless information like download speeds and how much you need to be able to stream each level of HD and other such trivia.

Yep, the graph provides little substance for consumers, other than the service can stream HD and when most users are streaming HD videos (during Prime Time, when everyone is at home, go figure).

Of course, my cynicism tells me it's perfect for the ISPs, as they can identify precisely when YouTube is directly competing with their own video streaming services and television networks.

I don't use Youtube, so I can't comment on their specific rates, but generally a single HD video stream is around 5-8Mbps, which should be within the capability of most ADSL anyways. Something seems fishy about this...

Unless stuff really changed with dsl, most no one gets 3 to 6 unless they are really close to the source. That's my experience from working in dsl support

Things most likely changed... Pretty much everyone else with DSL that I know trumps the 6mbps I can get, unless they're out in the countryside or in a home over 40 years old that hasn't been renovated or properly kept-up. The speed tests I've tried have indicated it's in the bottom 10-15% or so for US connections.

But...you're missing out on ALL the cute animal videos! Why, just the other day, there was this Bunny eating raspberries...

Not to mention plenty of quality channels, such as Roosterteeth (specially their Letsplay channel), Rev3, IGN, Geek & Sundry, various let's players (mindcrack, etc). Plus all those channels I don't watch featured in this commercials. Baking video game stuff? Sounds pretty cool.

I mean... Cyanide & Happiness is on there!

Let me take a moment and suggest that Ro is awesome with Nerdy Nummies. Also, most of the Polaris related Youtubers. It's very good that Youtube is opening up potential income sources for people who would probably never stand a chance on the airwaves or cable. (And yes, I'm kindof jealous. Even though I am not remotely as entertaining.)

To the topic at hand, though, while this may allow "upselling" it may also give ISPs a way to add differentiation to their "tier" offerings. "Well, yes, you can get SD Youtube speeds at your current tier - but for just $9.99* more you can move up to the HD Youtube tier!"*

Spoiler: show

Promotional rate for first 3 months. Actual cost is $59.99 every month after promotional period ends. Guaranteed 25% increase in price with commensurate reduction in speed every quarter thereafter. Not applicable unless you live at the corner of Main and First, where our main distribution facility is located. There will be no lube, but we promise you'll enjoy it.